Peer Review Policy

Overview
Pedagogical Perspective (PedPer) applies a rigorous double-blind peer review process. The identities of authors and reviewers are kept confidential throughout the evaluation and decision-making stages to promote objectivity and academic integrity.

Figure 1. This diagram summarizes Pedagogical Perspective (PedPer)’s double-blind peer review workflow: technical check → initial editorial screening (≤ 3 days) → iThenticate similarity check → section editor assignment → external review by at least two independent reviewers (target ≤ 4 weeks) → final decision (Editor-in-Chief) → author revision (15 days, extension upon request) → revision assessment and re-review when needed.

Note: Timelines are targets and may vary depending on reviewer availability and the scope of revisions.

1) Initial Editorial Screening (within 3 days)

All submissions undergo an initial check by the Editor-in-Chief (or a designated editor) to assess:

  • Fit with the journal’s aims and scope
  • Basic scholarly quality and originality
  • Compliance with publication ethics and required declarations
  • Language adequacy for peer review
  • Completeness of submission files and metadata

Submissions may be declined at this stage if they are out of scope, lack sufficient originality, or raise ethical concerns.

2) Plagiarism / Similarity Screening

PedPer screens manuscripts using iThenticate. Similarity reports are evaluated by the editorial office considering disciplinary norms and excluding references and properly quoted material where applicable.
Manuscripts showing evidence of plagiarism, redundant publication, or unacceptable overlap may be rejected or returned to authors for clarification and correction. If a similarity index is above 20%, the manuscript is subject to further editorial assessment and may be rejected where overlap is judged unacceptable.

3) Assignment to Section Editor

Manuscripts that pass the initial screening are assigned to a Section Editor who manages the external peer review process and ensures confidentiality and ethical compliance.

4) External Double-Blind Peer Review (target completion: within 4 weeks)

Eligible manuscripts are reviewed by at least two independent reviewers with expertise in the relevant subject area. Reviewers are selected based on:

  • Relevant expertise and publication record
  • Independence and absence of conflicts of interest

Reviewers must declare any potential conflicts of interest (financial, institutional, personal, or academic) and inform the editor before accepting the review. If a conflict exists, the editorial office will assign alternative reviewers.

Reviewers provide constructive feedback and recommend one of the following outcomes:

  • Accept
  • Minor Revision
  • Major Revision
  • Reject

Reviewers may also provide confidential comments to editors that are not shared with authors.

5) Editorial Decision

Based on reviewer reports, the Section Editor makes a recommendation to the Editor-in-Chief, who makes the final decision. Authors receive the decision along with anonymized reviewer reports.

6) Revisions (author response time: 15 days)

For Minor Revision and Major Revision decisions, authors are expected to submit:

  • A revised manuscript, and
  • A point-by-point response letter addressing each reviewer comment

Authors are given 15 days to submit revisions. If more time is needed, authors should request an extension before the deadline. Revised manuscripts may undergo additional rounds of review when necessary.

7) Confidentiality and Transparency

  • Reviewer identities are not disclosed to authors.
  • Reports shared with authors are anonymized.
  • Editors and reviewers must maintain confidentiality about submitted manuscripts and the peer review process.   

8) Appeals and Complaints

PedPer follows recognized publication-ethics guidance (e.g., COPE principles) when handling appeals and complaints. Authors may appeal editorial decisions by submitting a reasoned letter with supporting evidence to: info@pedagogicalperspective.com.
Editors aim to respond to appeals within two months. Appeals may result in confirmation of the decision, a request for revision, or additional review. Final decisions on appeals rest with the Editor-in-Chief.

9) Withdrawal Policy

Authors are encouraged to avoid withdrawal once peer review has begun. Withdrawal requests after review has started are considered only in exceptional circumstances and must be submitted in writing with a clear justification to info@pedagogicalperspective.com.
If the peer review process is delayed for more than six months, authors may request withdrawal.

Related Policies: Publication Ethics & Malpractice • Conflict of Interest (COI) Statement • Plagiarism & Similarity Policy • Complaints & Appeals Policy • Handling Allegations of Misconduct Policy • Corrections, Retractions & Expressions of Concern Policy • Thematic Issue Policy